What Kind Of Person Could "Execute" A Child?

[JudgeRightly]

I've made my argument. John 8 is Jesus saying we should be examine our own hearts BEFORE we start casting stones about. Are you so without sin in your life that you feel you could throw the first stone at an adulterer? A homosexual? A rape victim? A virgin who lied about being a virgin? The daughter of a pastor who became a prostitute? Murder?

You constantly lead the charge for stoning people for your selected sins yet never do I ever see you speak of forgiveness in your witness nor offering same to others by way of example of God's presence in your life.

I have made my argument that Christ teaches forgiveness first. I have asked you to refute that using the New Testament to do so. Instead of pointing out scripture you resort to name calling in hopes of hiding the fact that you cannot go to the New Covenant to support your theology.

You should go read kgov.com/forgiveness.

 

[Stripe]

I've made my argument.

We know. It's stupid beyond belief.

John 8 is Jesus saying we should be examine our own hearts BEFORE we start casting stones about.

That would be Matthew 7.

You might kind of be able to read that into John 8, but it is not explicit. What is explicit is that He was challenged regarding the law. Your stupid analysis makes the law of no effect.

Are you so without sin in your life that you feel you could throw the first stone at an adulterer? A homosexual? A rape victim? A virgin who lied about being a virgin? The daughter of a pastor who became a prostitute? Murder?

Apparently you are, hypocrite. You advocate punishment for crimes. Are you without sin?

You constantly lead the charge for stoning people for your selected sins yet never do I ever see you speak of forgiveness in your witness nor offering same to others by way of example of God's presence in your life.

Emotionalism and nonsense.

The law says to execute "without mercy."

Got a problem with that? Take it up with Jesus. He wrote it.

I have made my argument that Christ teaches forgiveness first.

Exactly incorrect. He teaches repentance first.

Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. Luke 17:3 NKJV

I have asked you to refute that using the New Testament to do so. Instead of pointing out scripture you resort to name calling in hopes of hiding the fact that you cannot go to the New Covenant to support your theology.

:yawn:

You have no capacity for rational thought.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

For those who violate God's Law?

Nope

Guess again

Christ was confronted with an adulteress that was caught in the act and there were witnesses. He forgave her.

 

[Right Divider]

No. Jesus is the Son of God who completed the Old Covenant and sealed the New Covenant with His blood. Jesus was teaching us about life under the New Covenant.

Wrong again... your are consistent.

The NEW covenant is with the SAME two parties as the OLD covenant. That's what the Bible says.

 

[ok doser]

He forgave her.

Nope


Go read it again

 

[CabinetMaker]

No one here has said we shouldn't.

We're saying that after we have examined ourselves, and gotten rid of anything that if we were to judge, would cause us to be hypocrites, we should judge with righteous judgment (John 7:24).



If one is not an adulterer, he can rightly condemn such criminals.



If one is not a homo, he or she can rightly condemn such criminals.



:think: Being a rape victim is a crime? News to me. (Strange that you don't know this one given your preference for the Old Covenant
Deuteronomy 22:25–27:25)




If a woman is a virgin, she can't lie about being a virgin... :think:



If one is not a fornicator, he can rightly condemn such criminals.



If one is not a murderer, he can rightly condemn such criminals.

Interestingly, Jesus did not ask those who had not committed adultery to cast the first stone, He asked for those without sin, meaning sin of any kind, to throw the first stone. IT would not seem the Jesus agrees with you. Who am I to believe? :eyeroll:

You constantly... well, you certainly don't lead, but you do follow in the footsteps of those who don't take the Bible seriously enough when it says to punish criminals in X way for Y crime, and then wonder why we have such a high crime rate.

I have never wondered that for a moment. People are basically good when all their needs are met. When those needs are not met, well, a lot of people ware willing to do anything to meet them. I don't even wonder why we have such a high recidivism rate here in the U.S. compared to someplace like Japan who actually punishes people. Without killing them. Fascinating case study.

If someone is not first condemned by the law, what is he to be forgiven of?

According to you, forgiveness should be superfluous. But that defeats the purpose of the law, and it even undermines the entire gospel.

Yes, you read that right. It undermines the entire gospel.

The law teaches us what i wrong before God. We transgress that law. Under the Old Covenant, there were prescribed penalties for said transgressions. Under the New Covenant, there is forgiveness where there is repentance. That does not mean that there is not penalties. The question is whether we as Christians should be demanding death or whether we should let civil law carry out its process while we as Christians work to save the soul of the criminal. Even a murder who repents of his sin but is still executed will be welcomed into Heaven by God. I want as many people to be in Heaven as there can be. So is your motivation The Great Commission or fear of your neighbor?

Christ taught that repentance comes before forgiveness, and if someone didn't repent, you shouldn't forgive them.

God expects that if someone comes to Him seeking forgiveness of sins, that they will repent of their wrongdoing. But the person can't know that what they've done is wrong, let alone sinful, if they haven't been shown that it's wrong. Or have you forgotten that the law is a tutor to bring someone to Christ? That's the purpose of the law, to show that someone has done wrong. If a person commits adultery, but there's no law against it on earth, then they cannot be condemned for a law that doesn't exist. But God's law does exist, and on judgment day, they will face God's wrath, because He wrote His law on their heart, and they ignored it, and broke His law. However, if there is a law against adultery here on earth, and if it's enforced, then if that person commits adultery, then they can justly be condemned, and if they're condemned, there's a 50% chance that they'll repent, even as they go to their execution. That's when the victim of that crime can forgive the criminal, only if they repent. Also, someone else cannot forgive a criminal for their crime, only God can pardon someone through Christ's blood. One can, however, forgive them of the harm they have done to you to the extent that they harmed you in the commission of their crime against someone else.

And yet...

Not one bit of the above precludes punishing the criminal for their crime. God said that judges should show no mercy to criminals.

Forgiveness is not mercy.



Except He doesn't teach "forgiveness first."

He taught if someone sins against you, REBUKE HIM. And IF HE REPENTS, forgive him.



[JESUS]Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”[/JESUS] - Luke 17:3-4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke17:3-4&version=NKJV

You have been refuted. NEXT!



:blabla:

It seems that Peter and Jesus continued the above conversation and Jesus had this to say:

Matthew 18: ²¹ Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” ²² Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.^[g]

So are you a witness for Christ who will forgive the murderer and welcome them into His Father's Kingdom or are you a witness for something/someone else?

 

[Right Divider]

That foes not change the fact that Jesus asked for an executioner.

Duh!

That is what the LAW COMMANDED.

Deut 17:5-7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(17:5) Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, [even] that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. (17:6) At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. (17:7) The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.
​

Those CLAIMING to be witnesses were to be the FIRST to cast the stones.

 

[ok doser]

He asked for those without sin, meaning sin of any kind....

Ummm

No

So are you a witness for Christ who will forgive the murderer...

The repentant murderer?

Sure


But I'd still expect him to pay the civil penalty for his crime

 

[CabinetMaker]

We know. It's stupid beyond belief.

That would be Matthew 7.

You mean this Matthew 7

Matthew 7 New International Version (NIV)
[h=3]Judging Others[/h]7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ² For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
³ “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? ⁴ How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
⁶ “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.


What is your measure Stripe? Are you willing for God to judge using your measure?

You might kind of be able to read that into John 8, but it is not explicit. What is explicit is that He was challenged regarding the law. Your stupid analysis makes the law of no effect.

Apparently you are, hypocrite. You advocate punishment for crimes. Are you without sin?

I never said I was without sin. Which is why I would never cast the first stone. Or any stone.

Emotionalism and nonsense.

The law says to execute "without mercy."

Where did Jesus say that?

Got a problem with that? Take it up with Jesus. He wrote it.

An assertion with out a cite to support it is just a lie.

Exactly incorrect. He teaches repentance first.

Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. Luke 17:3 NKJV

James 2:13: because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

I ask you again, what is your measure?

You have no capacity for rational thought.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Coming from mister irrational himself, this is just funny!

 

[CabinetMaker]

Wrong again... your are consistent.

The NEW covenant is with the SAME two parties as the OLD covenant. That's what the Bible says.

So we are just a law unto ourselves so it matters not what we do. Aren't you just a ray of sunshine.

By the way, what did Peter and Paul argue about?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nope


Go read it again

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
What does it mean if Jesus does not condemn you?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Duh!

That is what the LAW COMMANDED.

Deut 17:5-7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(17:5) Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, [even] that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. (17:6) At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. (17:7) The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.
​

Those CLAIMING to be witnesses were to be the FIRST to cast the stones.

And none of them could cast that stone when Jesus asked them too. Jesus never said do not stone her, He simply said if you are without sin, any sin, cast the first stone. That is rather a different standard than you are attempting to set by requiring somebody to not be guilty of that particular sin. I am unwilling to use your measure.

 

[ok doser]

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
What does it mean if Jesus does not condemn you?

It doesn't necessarily mean that He forgives you

 

[Stripe]

You mean this Matthew 7

Yes, that says "examine yourself." John 8 doesn't.

What is your measure Stripe? Are you willing for God to judge using your measure?

My willingness is of no relevance.

Except to satiate your emotionalism.

I would never cast ... any stone.

But you would not allow a criminal to go unpunished.

We have your standards for a criminal justice system, or God's. To disguise your assertion of primacy for your system, you appeal to emotionalism.

Where did Jesus say that?

Deuteronomy, dummy.

An assertion with out a cite to support it is just a lie.

No, it's not. Or else your assertion would be a lie.

You just make this up as you go, don't you?

I ask you again, what is your measure?

No, don't worry. Just ignore the parts where your stupid assertions are shown utterly wrong. Nobody will remember.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

He simply said if you are without sin, any sin....

Nope

That's not what He said

 

[CabinetMaker]

It doesn't necessarily mean that He forgives you

What, precisely, does it mean then?

 

[ok doser]

Deuteronomy, dummy.

That was before He went through anger management therapy.

He's a different guy in the NT

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yes, that says "examine yourself." John 8 doesn't.

My willingness is of no relevance.

That wasn't what I asked you, was it.

But you would not allow a criminal to go unpunished.

Now you are just resorting to flat out lies. I never said that.

We have your standards for a criminal justice system, or God's. To disguise your assertion of primacy for your system, you appeal to emotionalism.

No, just simple rational thought.

Deuteronomy, dummy.

No, God the Father handed down the Mosaic Laws, not Jesus. Jesus came to fulfill those laws and seal the New Covenant. He accomplished both with His death on the cross and His Resurrection.

No, it's not. Or else your assertion would be a lie.

I have backed up what I have said with scripture. You did finally attempt to cite a supporting scripture but you attributed it to the wrong Person.

No, don't worry. Just ignore the parts where your stupid assertions are shown utterly wrong. Nobody will remember.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

For your sake, I hope you're right.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Where did Jesus say that?

Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. - Numbers 35:31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers35:31&version=NKJV

Also...

Deut. 19:13, 21; Pro. 6:30-31

 

[Stripe]

Now you are just resorting to flat out lies. I never said that.

Oh. So now you want no crimes to be punished.

OK. That's even stupider.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk